Products have an inherent utility. The amount of labor involved in the production of a product is relevant to the price the product might have on the market.

Yes and in LTV that utility is it use value.

Note that if no one wants the product, then it has little value, no matter how resources and labor was expended.

Quote from: Psy

Wall Street deals in fictional capital, pieces of paper that are claims on value that doesn't yet exist (thus fictional at that production cycle), when/if the value is created they simply distribute that value to other capitalists.

For clarification, when you say Wall Street, you mean the Financial Services Industry? Here is the wikipedia definition for such:

Quote from: Wikipedia

Financial services refer to services provided by the finance industry. The finance industry encompasses a broad range of organizations that deal with the management of money. Among these organizations are banks, credit card companies, insurance companies, consumer finance companies, stock brokerages, investment funds and some government sponsored enterprises. As of 2004, the financial services industry represented 20% of the market capitalization of the S&P 500 in the United States."

Quote from: Psy

Quote from: wodan46

The way I see it, the redistribution of things is intrinsically valuable.

But it is not creating value in the system. For example if person A and person B trades claims on the profits of person C it doesn't create any new value. The capitalist mode of production is M-C-C1-M1, Money is transformed into commodities that are transformed into more valuable commodities that are sold for more money, this is how value is created in capitalist societies and Wall Street doesn't partake in this mode of value creation.

It creates value because it shifts resources in the system to where they are needed the most, thus promoting economic growth thus creating value. For example, let's say I come up with the blueprint for a Fusion Powerplant, and need money to build it. I take a loan from a bank and use it to build the Fusion Powerplant, which I use to generate energy, which is valuable, and I can thus sell it to make money, paying off the loan and interest, while still making money. In short, by transferring the money to me, more value was created in the market. Currency is simply an object that is recognized by all participants as having value, and thus allows value exchanges to occur without constant bartering of various objects.

However, its also possible that my Fusion Powerplant idea is impossible, that I will be unable to pay the loan, go into bankruptcy, and cause value to leave the system.

Hence, those with access to value stored in the form of currency must make decisions as to how to distribute it in order to result in the generation rather than the loss of value. This is the goal that CEOs are SUPPOSED to have, when it comes to managing their companies resources. The problem is that it is too easy for CEOs to siphon stored value to themselves while concealing their actions, resulting in them draining the system.

Quote from: Psy

But their work does not generate new wealth thus is unproductive in society as they are nothing but a inefficiency to the capitalist goal of generating more wealth.

As just discussed, by their ability to turn potential value into actual value, they are useful to the system. Also, there is the simple fact that any system you make will generate such entities anyways whether you want it to or not, so you might as well formalize and contain their position.

Quote from: Psy

All fine and well but it is beside the point that administration in itself doesn't generate value.

Other than that without the administrators, the system would either collapse or be consumed by corruption, in either case this would result in the system losing value, hence the presence of administrators results in an increase in value.

Quote from: Psy

I think you misunderstand what capitalists are, they are not administrators since they hire managers to manage their holdings they are just owners they are the modern day equivalent to feudal lords that get money simply for being entitled to it with the only difference is they buy and sell claims on production.

Those hired managers are from my perspective complicit with and of the same group as capitalists, in that they both manipulate assets. You are correct in that they get money purely because of their position of power, this is because there exists no adequate check to prevent them from transferring assets into their own pockets, rather than transferring assets to places that result in creation of value, in which case they could be justified in taking a "finder's fee" for creating value that wouldn't have otherwise existed.

Take Warren Buffet. He is a good example of what a "good" capitalist should be. He moves resources to where they are needed, generates value as a result, and takes portion of that value for himself. He wins, the people who got his loan win, and the overall economy wins. Libertarians exist under the delusion that the market's selective forces automatically lead to Buffet types winning, hence their rosy picture of capitalism.

I believe that it is key to make it so that capitalists can only profit when the value they move generates additional value, not when they move the value to themselves while hiding negative values.

Quote from: Psy

General Motors was not a bloated system, it was a victim of its fixed capital. Its foreign competitors have newer means of production that significantly reduces the labor cost of production while General Motors had huge investments in older means of production that requires more labor.

And that fixed capital resulted in it bloating in a desperate attempt to match the foreign competitors.

Quote from: Psy

Chavez did it with a far more hostile opposition.

Chavez is a dictator whose policies have led to economic ruin. I don't think he's a good example to follow.

Quote from: Psy

If GM is owned by the US federal state then the US government would decide on GM workers wages and benefits.

Yet they still can't create money where there isn't any. Ok, they do, but it results in negative value being created elsewhere and is a bad idea overall.

Quote from: Psy

If the US government owns GM then it could get arms and equipment from GM at cost of production. Meaning the cost of say 1,000,000 trucks to the government would the cost of material and labor for its GM plants to produce them as it would be in-house production.

Though you leave out the costs for those managing the processes, and the strong likelihood that someone will likely take advantage of said managing to take some for themselves, just like the non-government system.

Also, that leaves out the more severe consequences that occur when government controls a production system. Because they have access to even more monetary value than corporations, as well as able to define regulations as they see fit, they have the same unfair competitive powers that big corporations have, only even more so. Historically, government ownership of the means of production has been terribly inefficient, and for reasons that have more to do with human nature than historical circumstances of the implementation.

It creates value because it shifts resources in the system to where they are needed the most, thus promoting economic growth thus creating value. For example, let's say I come up with the blueprint for a Fusion Powerplant, and need money to build it. I take a loan from a bank and use it to build the Fusion Powerplant, which I use to generate energy, which is valuable, and I can thus sell it to make money, paying off the loan and interest, while still making money. In short, by transferring the money to me, more value was created in the market. Currency is simply an object that is recognized by all participants as having value, and thus allows value exchanges to occur without constant bartering of various objects.

However, its also possible that my Fusion Powerplant idea is impossible, that I will be unable to pay the loan, go into bankruptcy, and cause value to leave the system.

Hence, those with access to value stored in the form of currency must make decisions as to how to distribute it in order to result in the generation rather than the loss of value. This is the goal that CEOs are SUPPOSED to have, when it comes to managing their companies resources. The problem is that it is too easy for CEOs to siphon stored value to themselves while concealing their actions, resulting in them draining the system.

That is like saying the fuel injection system on a engine itself is a source of energy just because it controls the fuel that enters piston chamber. The finical sector creates no value, they only manage value that already exist in the system.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

But their work does not generate new wealth thus is unproductive in society as they are nothing but a inefficiency to the capitalist goal of generating more wealth.

As just discussed, by their ability to turn potential value into actual value, they are useful to the system. Also, there is the simple fact that any system you make will generate such entities anyways whether you want it to or not, so you might as well formalize and contain their position.

The goal of capitalism is to take money to buy commodities (raw materials,machinery and labor), transform those commodities into a more valuable commodity that is sold for more money. Since the actions of a capitalists does not increase the value of the commodity under capitalism it is unproductive labor, no one will pay more for a commodity just because one capitalists owned the means of production rather then another hell most people are unaware who owns the means of production that produced the commodities they purchase.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

All fine and well but it is beside the point that administration in itself doesn't generate value.

Other than that without the administrators, the system would either collapse or be consumed by corruption, in either case this would result in the system losing value, hence the presence of administrators results in an increase in value.

That doesn't change the fact that it is a inefficiency. Also workers have in past been able to organize production collectively.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

I think you misunderstand what capitalists are, they are not administrators since they hire managers to manage their holdings they are just owners they are the modern day equivalent to feudal lords that get money simply for being entitled to it with the only difference is they buy and sell claims on production.

Those hired managers are from my perspective complicit with and of the same group as capitalists, in that they both manipulate assets. You are correct in that they get money purely because of their position of power, this is because there exists no adequate check to prevent them from transferring assets into their own pockets, rather than transferring assets to places that result in creation of value, in which case they could be justified in taking a "finder's fee" for creating value that wouldn't have otherwise existed.

Take Warren Buffet. He is a good example of what a "good" capitalist should be. He moves resources to where they are needed, generates value as a result, and takes portion of that value for himself. He wins, the people who got his loan win, and the overall economy wins. Libertarians exist under the delusion that the market's selective forces automatically lead to Buffet types winning, hence their rosy picture of capitalism.

I believe that it is key to make it so that capitalists can only profit when the value they move generates additional value, not when they move the value to themselves while hiding negative values.

Warren Buffet doesn't generate any value, he just manages the generation of value. Warren Buffet does not directly buy commodities and transform them into a more valuable commodity that is sold for more then he started with. Warren Buffet makes money through buying claims on the creation of new value.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

General Motors was not a bloated system, it was a victim of its fixed capital. Its foreign competitors have newer means of production that significantly reduces the labor cost of production while General Motors had huge investments in older means of production that requires more labor.

And that fixed capital resulted in it bloating in a desperate attempt to match the foreign competitors.

It is not bloat, just like if China used even newer means of production to mass produce cars globally that won't make Japanese car companies bloated.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

Chavez did it with a far more hostile opposition.

Chavez is a dictator whose policies have led to economic ruin. I don't think he's a good example to follow.

Chavez was elected multiple times and rescued from a military coup by the masses taking to streets, so far from a dictator. Also Venezeula is far from economic ruins.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

If GM is owned by the US federal state then the US government would decide on GM workers wages and benefits.

Yet they still can't create money where there isn't any. Ok, they do, but it results in negative value being created elsewhere and is a bad idea overall.

Value is created when labor is applied to the creation of commodities, in other words the US government subsidizing GM would be the US government subsidizing value creation.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

If the US government owns GM then it could get arms and equipment from GM at cost of production. Meaning the cost of say 1,000,000 trucks to the government would the cost of material and labor for its GM plants to produce them as it would be in-house production.

Though you leave out the costs for those managing the processes, and the strong likelihood that someone will likely take advantage of said managing to take some for themselves, just like the non-government system.

Governments effectively manage massive militarizes so the managing of production is not beyond the capacity of governments.

Quote from: wodan46

Also, that leaves out the more severe consequences that occur when government controls a production system. Because they have access to even more monetary value than corporations, as well as able to define regulations as they see fit, they have the same unfair competitive powers that big corporations have, only even more so. Historically, government ownership of the means of production has been terribly inefficient, and for reasons that have more to do with human nature than historical circumstances of the implementation.

The U.S.S.R disproves that. A backward semi-industrial backwater ravished by wars rapidly industrialized even with crippling corruption and bureaucracy. Shortages in consumer goods was caused by the military taking up most of the U.S.S.R's productive capacity, meaning it was not a problem with planning failing to deliver what planners wanted but planners not putting significant effort in consumer goods.

That is like saying the fuel injection system on a engine itself is a source of energy just because it controls the fuel that enters piston chamber. The finical sector creates no value, they only manage value that already exist in the system.

Except that value would not have existed if they had not been managing. Their managing is directly responsible for the introduction of genuine new value into the system where there wasn't before.

Quote from: Psy

The goal of capitalism is to take money to buy commodities (raw materials,machinery and labor), transform those commodities into a more valuable commodity that is sold for more money. Since the actions of a capitalists does not increase the value of the commodity under capitalism it is unproductive labor, no one will pay more for a commodity just because one capitalists owned the means of production rather then another hell most people are unaware who owns the means of production that produced the commodities they purchase.

People are not interested in purchasing raw rubber, nails, labor, and factories. They are interested in buying cars. In short, the materials, while separate, are of little value, it is only when there is an entity masterminding their combination that it gains value. That managing entity labors to create value. He is entitled to his share of the profit, because if he was not there, that profit would not have been possible in the first place. If you attempt to shift managerial duties onto the worker, that will result in there being less capacity for oversight of the managing, while also putting additional labor on the worker, a recipe for disaster.

Quote from: Psy

Quote from: wodan46

Other than that without the administrators, the system would either collapse or be consumed by corruption, in either case this would result in the system losing value, hence the presence of administrators results in an increase in value.

That doesn't change the fact that it is a inefficiency.

Production without Management=low valueProduction with Management=high valueManagement=high value-low value=some value

How precisely is that inefficient? It only become inefficient when the manager is given the freedom to rob the system for all its worth, when that option is denied, they directly contribute to the system's value.

Quote from: Psy

Also workers have in past been able to organize production collectively.

That is blatantly false. Your favorite example, the Spanish Revolutionaries, I read the book on, written by someone who liked the system, admitted that the system was still doomed. It survived by looting the remnants of the previous system and the momentary goodwill that exists during a revolutionary period, and even then, it was only able to survive, it was atrociously inefficient, and its shortages directly resulted in it being overpowered by the Soviet faction, which received economic support from the outside. Both groups ultimately lost to Franco anyways.

Quote from: Psy

Warren Buffet doesn't generate any value, he just manages the generation of value. Warren Buffet does not directly buy commodities and transform them into a more valuable commodity that is sold for more then he started with. Warren Buffet makes money through buying claims on the creation of new value.

Warren Buffet's management of value generation directly leads to that value generation being substantially higher, so yes he does generate value.

Quote from: Psy

It is not bloat, just like if China used even newer means of production to mass produce cars globally that won't make Japanese car companies bloated.

The bloating was in response to the fixed means of production.

Quote from: Psy

Chavez was elected multiple times and rescued from a military coup by the masses taking to streets, so far from a dictator. Also Venezeula is far from economic ruins.

I hate to invoke Godwin's law, but Hitler was also elected by his people, that didn't make him any less of a dictator. Chavez still behaves as if he is above the constitution.

Quote from: Wikipedia

Some social scientists and economists claim that the government's reported poverty figures have not fallen in proportion to the country's vast petroleum revenues in the last two years.[15] The president of Datos said that, although his surveys showed rising incomes because of subsidies and grants, the number of people in the worst living conditions has grown. "The poor of Venezuela are living much better lately and have increased their purchasing power... [but] without being able to improve their housing, education level, and social mobility," he said. "Rather than help [the poor] become stakeholders in the economic system, what [the government has] done is distribute as much oil wealth as possible in missions and social programs."[24]

This is among other indicators that Chavez's policies have not helped as much as they should have.

Quote from: Psy

Value is created when labor is applied to the creation of commodities, in other words the US government subsidizing GM would be the US government subsidizing value creation.

How does that have anything to do with the government financing worker wages with money that the government doesn't actually have? Whether or not the workers are able to produce value is irrelevant to whether or not the US government has the money to pay for their labor. It will take some time before the actual money generated by that labor exceeds the money required in wages/materials anyways, so until then, GM is a sinkhole for value.

Quote from: Psy

Governments effectively manage massive militarizes so the managing of production is not beyond the capacity of governments.

How does that have anything to do with the massive potential for corruption and other abuses of power within such a system? Also, a military system is fundamentally different from a production system, so your comparison is meaningless anyways.

Quote from: Psy

The U.S.S.R disproves that. A backward semi-industrial backwater ravished by wars rapidly industrialized even with crippling corruption and bureaucracy. Shortages in consumer goods was caused by the military taking up most of the U.S.S.R's productive capacity, meaning it was not a problem with planning failing to deliver what planners wanted but planners not putting significant effort in consumer goods.

Their system involved working millions of people to death in labor camps, then stealing their belongings and holdings. It also involved other people being "willing" to tolerate atrocious conditions (its either that or be the first group of people). The USSR started experiencing real growth after it first abandoned communism, then had the oligarchs be disposed of by Putin. All this in a country that had over a 100 million people and plenty of natural resources.

I do agree that the huge military buildup pretty much meant the cold war russian economy was doomed regardless.

That is like saying the fuel injection system on a engine itself is a source of energy just because it controls the fuel that enters piston chamber. The finical sector creates no value, they only manage value that already exist in the system.

Except that value would not have existed if they had not been managing. Their managing is directly responsible for the introduction of genuine new value into the system where there wasn't before.

Doesn't matter when talking about efficiency in science, anything that draws on the energy source is a inefficiency even if it overall increases efficiency. For example computer controls a train is a inefficiency even though the computer allows the train to move far more efficiency by managing speed better it is technically a inefficiency as it draws electricity and not directly involved in transferring that electricity into forward momentum, the computer simply manages the process of turning electricity into forward momentum.

So using scientific terms that means capitalists are also inefficiencies, capitalists consume value yet not directly involved in the the production of value.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

The goal of capitalism is to take money to buy commodities (raw materials,machinery and labor), transform those commodities into a more valuable commodity that is sold for more money. Since the actions of a capitalists does not increase the value of the commodity under capitalism it is unproductive labor, no one will pay more for a commodity just because one capitalists owned the means of production rather then another hell most people are unaware who owns the means of production that produced the commodities they purchase.

People are not interested in purchasing raw rubber, nails, labor, and factories. They are interested in buying cars. In short, the materials, while separate, are of little value, it is only when there is an entity masterminding their combination that it gains value. That managing entity labors to create value. He is entitled to his share of the profit, because if he was not there, that profit would not have been possible in the first place. If you attempt to shift managerial duties onto the worker, that will result in there being less capacity for oversight of the managing, while also putting additional labor on the worker, a recipe for disaster.

If that was the case primitive societies could never produce value yet they did so self coordinated production still produces value.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

Quote from: wodan46

Other than that without the administrators, the system would either collapse or be consumed by corruption, in either case this would result in the system losing value, hence the presence of administrators results in an increase in value.

That doesn't change the fact that it is a inefficiency.

Production without Management=low valueProduction with Management=high valueManagement=high value-low value=some value

How precisely is that inefficient? It only become inefficient when the manager is given the freedom to rob the system for all its worth, when that option is denied, they directly contribute to the system's value.

See above. It is a inefficiency because it consumes value without directly producing new value. For example if a worker works harder that would result in the creation of more value even if the worker was unsupervised. Playing golf far from the production process is far from useful in producing utility and in large centralized means of production workers regularly manage production by themselves without realizing it, when something goes wrong the capitalists is the last to know (even in disasters like train crashes) workers communicate to the other workers within the organization to organize a emergency response before the capitalists even get involved.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

Also workers have in past been able to organize production collectively.

That is blatantly false. Your favorite example, the Spanish Revolutionaries, I read the book on, written by someone who liked the system, admitted that the system was still doomed. It survived by looting the remnants of the previous system and the momentary goodwill that exists during a revolutionary period, and even then, it was only able to survive, it was atrociously inefficient, and its shortages directly resulted in it being overpowered by the Soviet faction, which received economic support from the outside. Both groups ultimately lost to Franco anyways.

How many capitalists factories are efficiency when faced with battles all along its supply lines?

Also you have self organized production in Paris May 1968, Argentina 2001 and in the last case the self organized factories were so efficient capitalists came back to claim their abandoned factories now that they were successful due to the workers managing production.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

Warren Buffet doesn't generate any value, he just manages the generation of value. Warren Buffet does not directly buy commodities and transform them into a more valuable commodity that is sold for more then he started with. Warren Buffet makes money through buying claims on the creation of new value.

Warren Buffet's management of value generation directly leads to that value generation being substantially higher, so yes he does generate value.

How is Warren Buffet better at managing production then workers on site that actually know what is going on?

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

It is not bloat, just like if China used even newer means of production to mass produce cars globally that won't make Japanese car companies bloated.

The bloating was in response to the fixed means of production.

All capitalists have fixed capital, when you invest in machinery you are stuck with that machinery till they pay for themselves.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

Chavez was elected multiple times and rescued from a military coup by the masses taking to streets, so far from a dictator. Also Venezeula is far from economic ruins.

I hate to invoke Godwin's law, but Hitler was also elected by his people, that didn't make him any less of a dictator. Chavez still behaves as if he is above the constitution.

Chavez went with referendums when it came to alerting the constitution/

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Wikipedia

Some social scientists and economists claim that the government's reported poverty figures have not fallen in proportion to the country's vast petroleum revenues in the last two years.[15] The president of Datos said that, although his surveys showed rising incomes because of subsidies and grants, the number of people in the worst living conditions has grown. "The poor of Venezuela are living much better lately and have increased their purchasing power... [but] without being able to improve their housing, education level, and social mobility," he said. "Rather than help [the poor] become stakeholders in the economic system, what [the government has] done is distribute as much oil wealth as possible in missions and social programs."[24]

This is among other indicators that Chavez's policies have not helped as much as they should have.

True but Chavez does have limits to his powers and his policies have helped greatly compared prior to them.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

Value is created when labor is applied to the creation of commodities, in other words the US government subsidizing GM would be the US government subsidizing value creation.

How does that have anything to do with the government financing worker wages with money that the government doesn't actually have? Whether or not the workers are able to produce value is irrelevant to whether or not the US government has the money to pay for their labor. It will take some time before the actual money generated by that labor exceeds the money required in wages/materials anyways, so until then, GM is a sinkhole for value.

Since GM workers can produce value then of course it is possible to pay them with the value they produce. At any rate would be far more productive then supporting the workers rate of consumption through unemployment and welfare.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

Governments effectively manage massive militarizes so the managing of production is not beyond the capacity of governments.

How does that have anything to do with the massive potential for corruption and other abuses of power within such a system?

Governments are not automatically corrupt.

Quote from: wodan46

Also, a military system is fundamentally different from a production system, so your comparison is meaningless anyways.

How is the army building a bridge different then a private company building a bridge?

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

The U.S.S.R disproves that. A backward semi-industrial backwater ravished by wars rapidly industrialized even with crippling corruption and bureaucracy. Shortages in consumer goods was caused by the military taking up most of the U.S.S.R's productive capacity, meaning it was not a problem with planning failing to deliver what planners wanted but planners not putting significant effort in consumer goods.

Their system involved working millions of people to death in labor camps, then stealing their belongings and holdings. It also involved other people being "willing" to tolerate atrocious conditions (its either that or be the first group of people).

And that is different the early capitalism how? Also that was only true for Stalinist Russia, afterwords Russia had matured into modern industrial power and had similar working conditions as other emerging economies.

Quote from: wodan46

The USSR started experiencing real growth after it first abandoned communism, then had the oligarchs be disposed of by Putin. All this in a country that had over a 100 million people and plenty of natural resources.

Doesn't matter when talking about efficiency in science, anything that draws on the energy source is a inefficiency even if it overall increases efficiency....So using scientific terms that means capitalists are also inefficiencies, capitalists consume value yet not directly involved in the the production of value.

Now you are just arguing semantics. The worker requires money and food, does that mean they are inefficient? If the manager adds to the productivity of system, they add value, end of story.

Quote from: Psy

If that was the case primitive societies could never produce value yet they did so self coordinated production still produces value.

Primitive societies also had a life expectancy of 20 years, were incapable of functioning with more than a couple dozen people without adding management levels, and tended to be incredibly inefficient. They produced value yes, but they produced very little per person compared to modern society, and modern society is utterly dependent on massive country wide systems, all of which require heavy management in order to function.

Quote from: Psy

Quote from: wodan46

Production without Management=low valueProduction with Management=high valueManagement=high value-low value=some value

See above. It is a inefficiency because it consumes value without directly producing new value.

Except that it directly produces value. I clearly stated that numerous times. You've made no effort to refute such.

Quote from: Psy

For example if a worker works harder that would result in the creation of more value even if the worker was unsupervised.

So?

Quote from: Psy

in large centralized means of production workers regularly manage production by themselves without realizing it, when something goes wrong the capitalists is the last to know (even in disasters like train crashes) workers communicate to the other workers within the organization to organize a emergency response before the capitalists even get involved.

You are using a narrow definition of capitalism now. While the people at the top don't get involved, the bureaucrats, the middlemen, the managers, and the administrators do get involved. The CEO's job is usually focused on picking the right people for those jobs, and other high level processes.

Its like saying that the president is useless because he doesn't enforce or even write the laws. But he is responsible for the coordination of the people who do, or perhaps the coordination of the coordinators.

Quote from: Psy

How many capitalists factories are efficiency when faced with battles all along its supply lines?

False. They had complete control of those areas, it was nowhere near the front lines, and they still had no efficiency.

Quote from: Psy

Also you have self organized production in Paris May 1968, Argentina 2001 and in the last case the self organized factories were so efficient capitalists came back to claim their abandoned factories now that they were successful due to the workers managing production.

Give me proof. Most groups like that turn out to be weaker than they look when investigated historically after the propaganda wars die down. Moreover, they still represent small scale operations. A 100 person operation needs less layers of management than a 10000 person operation. They are also using existing facilities. Operating a factory, yes. But could they build a factory, or decide where and when such should be built?

Quote from: Psy

How is Warren Buffet better at managing production then workers on site that actually know what is going on?

Warren Buffet has nothing to do with that. I don't think you understand what Buffet does.

Let's say there are 3 Ventures, Venture A, Venture B, and Venture C. All of them claim that if you give them the money they need to purchase materials and pay workers, they will be able to turn a profit, and eventually become self sufficient, paying back the loan with interest. Investing in A or C will result in a failed venture and loss of money. Only Venture B will genuinely produce value greater than the initial loan, and become self sufficient.

Warren Buffet is the person responsible for figuring out that Venture B is the good one and investing in it. If it were someone less competent than Buffet, you would end up wasting a ton of resources on bad ventures. If you had no one in his position at all, the ventures would never get off the ground resulting in no losses or gains. It is only with Warren Buffet that you can get the good ventures going, and generate value.

Quote from: Psy

All capitalists have fixed capital, when you invest in machinery you are stuck with that machinery till they pay for themselves.

And this is different from what the workers are stuck with how? They would have to invest in machinery as well if they wished for anything.

Quote from: Psy

Chavez went with referendums when it came to alerting the constitution/

Same difference.

Quote from: Psy

True but Chavez does have limits to his powers and his policies have helped greatly compared prior to them.

But were his the best? Honestly, with all that oil, it was pretty likely that his country would be improving regardless of leader. Unless it was Bush or something.

Quote from: Psy

Since GM workers can produce value then of course it is possible to pay them with the value they produce.

Except that the value they produce is less than the value you need to pay them with.

Quote from: Psy

At any rate would be far more productive then supporting the workers rate of consumption through unemployment and welfare.

But not as productive as having them find a new job where they can turn a net profit.

Quote from: Psy

Governments are not automatically corrupt.

They are when you give them large amounts of resources to shift around with insufficient oversight. You propose giving them the resources to shift. Thanks to the "who watches the watchmen" paradox, there will always be insufficient oversight for such a nest egg.

Quote from: Psy

How is the army building a bridge different then a private company building a bridge?

A huge difference. Tell me, do you think that a military trial is going to be anything like a civilian trial?

Quote from: Psy

Quote from: wodan46

Their system involved working millions of people to death in labor camps, then stealing their belongings and holdings. It also involved other people being "willing" to tolerate atrocious conditions (its either that or be the first group of people).

And that is different the early capitalism how?

It occurred after capitalism had eliminated such things.

Quote from: Psy

Also that was only true for Stalinist Russia, afterwords Russia had matured into modern industrial power and had similar working conditions as other emerging economies.

You mean after it became moderate and adopted western economic policies.

Doesn't matter when talking about efficiency in science, anything that draws on the energy source is a inefficiency even if it overall increases efficiency....So using scientific terms that means capitalists are also inefficiencies, capitalists consume value yet not directly involved in the the production of value.

Now you are just arguing semantics. The worker requires money and food, does that mean they are inefficient? If the manager adds to the productivity of system, they add value, end of story.

100% efficiency would be 100% of the value going into value production coming out as value. Since LTV states labor value translates over to exchange value it means the more workers consume (staying with what is socially acceptable) the more valuable the commodity.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

If that was the case primitive societies could never produce value yet they did so self coordinated production still produces value.

Primitive societies also had a life expectancy of 20 years, were incapable of functioning with more than a couple dozen people without adding management levels, and tended to be incredibly inefficient. They produced value yes, but they produced very little per person compared to modern society, and modern society is utterly dependent on massive country wide systems, all of which require heavy management in order to function.

Mostly due to limitations of technology rather then organization.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

Quote from: wodan46

Production without Management=low valueProduction with Management=high valueManagement=high value-low value=some value

See above. It is a inefficiency because it consumes value without directly producing new value.

Except that it directly produces value. I clearly stated that numerous times. You've made no effort to refute such.

See above

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

For example if a worker works harder that would result in the creation of more value even if the worker was unsupervised.

So?

So capitalists are not involved in generating new value.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

in large centralized means of production workers regularly manage production by themselves without realizing it, when something goes wrong the capitalists is the last to know (even in disasters like train crashes) workers communicate to the other workers within the organization to organize a emergency response before the capitalists even get involved.

You are using a narrow definition of capitalism now. While the people at the top don't get involved, the bureaucrats, the middlemen, the managers, and the administrators do get involved. The CEO's job is usually focused on picking the right people for those jobs, and other high level processes.

Its like saying that the president is useless because he doesn't enforce or even write the laws. But he is responsible for the coordination of the people who do, or perhaps the coordination of the coordinators.

We are talking about relations to production which have clear class divisions.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

How many capitalists factories are efficiency when faced with battles all along its supply lines?

False. They had complete control of those areas, it was nowhere near the front lines, and they still had no efficiency.

Really? You think raw materials and their shipment were unaffected by fighting?

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

Also you have self organized production in Paris May 1968, Argentina 2001 and in the last case the self organized factories were so efficient capitalists came back to claim their abandoned factories now that they were successful due to the workers managing production.

Give me proof. Most groups like that turn out to be weaker than they look when investigated historically after the propaganda wars die down. Moreover, they still represent small scale operations. A 100 person operation needs less layers of management than a 10000 person operation. They are also using existing facilities. Operating a factory, yes. But could they build a factory, or decide where and when such should be built?

The U.S.S.R built new factories, sure it didn't give workers a say but my point is that it is possible for new means of production to be built without capitalists.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

How is Warren Buffet better at managing production then workers on site that actually know what is going on?

Warren Buffet has nothing to do with that. I don't think you understand what Buffet does.

Let's say there are 3 Ventures, Venture A, Venture B, and Venture C. All of them claim that if you give them the money they need to purchase materials and pay workers, they will be able to turn a profit, and eventually become self sufficient, paying back the loan with interest. Investing in A or C will result in a failed venture and loss of money. Only Venture B will genuinely produce value greater than the initial loan, and become self sufficient.

Warren Buffet is the person responsible for figuring out that Venture B is the good one and investing in it. If it were someone less competent than Buffet, you would end up wasting a ton of resources on bad ventures. If you had no one in his position at all, the ventures would never get off the ground resulting in no losses or gains. It is only with Warren Buffet that you can get the good ventures going, and generate value.

But you already have greater inefficiency since you have Venture A, B and C all producing without coordinating their efforts infact they try to undermined each other efforts.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

All capitalists have fixed capital, when you invest in machinery you are stuck with that machinery till they pay for themselves.

And this is different from what the workers are stuck with how? They would have to invest in machinery as well if they wished for anything.

You miss the point, it is not GM's fault it is less competitive then its foreign competitors as its competitors simply entered the business later thus have more advanced machinery as they bought them later then GM they also had huge subsidies from the Japanese state to get their machinery.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

Chavez went with referendums when it came to alerting the constitution/

Same difference.

No as it was asking the people "hey do you like these changes to the constitution" then when they said no Chavez went back to the drawing board so to speak.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

True but Chavez does have limits to his powers and his policies have helped greatly compared prior to them.

But were his the best? Honestly, with all that oil, it was pretty likely that his country would be improving regardless of leader. Unless it was Bush or something.

It wasn't improving prior to Chavez.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

Since GM workers can produce value then of course it is possible to pay them with the value they produce.

Except that the value they produce is less than the value you need to pay them with.

Not really, at least not if you go by LTV. If you go by LTV then the problem is a lack of surplus value generated not a lack of value. Workers always generate enough value to pay their labor value since exchange value is determined on that, what lacks is surplus value to pay those not involved in commodity production and a problem of lack of demand for the utility produce.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

At any rate would be far more productive then supporting the workers rate of consumption through unemployment and welfare.

But not as productive as having them find a new job where they can turn a net profit.

What new job? There is no new jobs waiting for them that allow them the same level of consumption.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

Governments are not automatically corrupt.

They are when you give them large amounts of resources to shift around with insufficient oversight. You propose giving them the resources to shift. Thanks to the "who watches the watchmen" paradox, there will always be insufficient oversight for such a nest egg.

And how would capitalists be any different?

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

How is the army building a bridge different then a private company building a bridge?

A huge difference. Tell me, do you think that a military trial is going to be anything like a civilian trial?

Why would a trial be involved with building a bridge? We are talking about production here.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

Quote from: wodan46

Their system involved working millions of people to death in labor camps, then stealing their belongings and holdings. It also involved other people being "willing" to tolerate atrocious conditions (its either that or be the first group of people).

And that is different the early capitalism how?

It occurred after capitalism had eliminated such things.

Russia was a backwater at the time, it didn't go through that stage of capitalism yet.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

Also that was only true for Stalinist Russia, afterwords Russia had matured into modern industrial power and had similar working conditions as other emerging economies.

You mean after it became moderate and adopted western economic policies.

I could reply on this, but does anyone except Psy really care. I've dealt with most of Psy's fallacies in previous posts.

Well this is why I keep going back to LTV as it becomes clear that the problem is the lack of understanding of how value is created in society. That it is impossible for capitalists to generate value unless they physically partake in producing commodities, managing production in itself does not create value nor does selling commodities (selling commodities is simply transferring value from one form (commodities) to capital in another (money)).

LTV economists also view Russia as more improvised now then in 1980's since more Russians were working during the 1980's and consumed far more (and there was more Russians since the mortality rate was much lower, Russia's population declined around 5 million since the collapse of the U.S.S.R) while other economists view as more prosperous since Russia has a higher rate of profit.

100% efficiency would be 100% of the value going into value production coming out as value. Since LTV states labor value translates over to exchange value it means the more workers consume (staying with what is socially acceptable) the more valuable the commodity.

Your argument is circular. You use LTV being true as the primary proof that LTV is true.

Quote from: Psy

Mostly due to limitations of technology rather then organization.

And how did they implement technological and societal advancement?

Quote from: Psy

So capitalists are not involved in generating new value.

You have not proven this. I have repeatedly demonstrated why it is false, and you have offered no counter argument other than dancing in semantic circles.

Quote from: Psy

We are talking about relations to production which have clear class divisions.

Semantic circle. You define everything to meet your perspective.

Quote from: Psy

Really? You think raw materials and their shipment were unaffected by fighting?

Seeing as they were nowhere near the fight, yes, they were unaffected.

Quote from: Psy

The U.S.S.R built new factories, sure it didn't give workers a say but my point is that it is possible for new means of production to be built without capitalists.

The USSR system was dominated by capitalists. Also, you don't want to be using USSR as an example of a system to move towards.

Quote from: Psy

But you already have greater inefficiency since you have Venture A, B and C all producing without coordinating their efforts infact they try to undermined each other efforts.

So you agree with me then? Because Warren Buffet eliminates that inefficiency. That was my whole point.

Quote from: Psy

You miss the point, it is not GM's fault it is less competitive then its foreign competitors as its competitors simply entered the business later thus have more advanced machinery as they bought them later then GM they also had huge subsidies from the Japanese state to get their machinery.

And how does that have anything to do with what we were just talking about? Stop dodging, stop running in circles, stop wasting my time.

Quote from: Psy

No as it was asking the people "hey do you like these changes to the constitution" then when they said no Chavez went back to the drawing board so to speak.

He still was undermining the constitution.

Quote from: Psy

It wasn't improving prior to Chavez.

And there wasn't the degree of oil before Chavez. Nor has Chavez really improved things that much.

Quote from: Psy

Quote from: wodan46

Except that the value they produce is less than the value you need to pay them with.

LTV blah blah blah

None of that changes what I said. Supply exceeds demand, hence products are either cheaper than normal or not bought at all, hence the value put in does not match the value put out. The only way to fix this is to decrease supply, and if you decrease supply, that is going to involve firing workers, because they aren't needed anymore.

Quote from: Psy

What new job? There is no new jobs waiting for them that allow them the same level of consumption.

Then make them.

Quote from: Psy

And how would capitalists be any different?

They aren't elected. Elected officials can exert oversight over others, but the public also has limited oversight over them. Handing over production systems to them would redouble their motivation to corrupt, while ruining the public's ability to exert oversight over them. Keeping the elected officials and managers of the economy separate allows the former to exert some oversight over the latter.

Quote from: Psy

Why would a trial be involved with building a bridge? We are talking about production here.

No we were talking about the differences between military and civil systems. I was showing how military and civil systems are inherently different, and that when you analyze those differences, it becomes clear that the military would handle production differently than the civil, and not in a good way.

Quote from: Psy

Russia was a backwater at the time, it didn't go through that stage of capitalism yet.

Irrelevant.

Quote from: Psy

Quote from: wodan46

You mean after it became moderate and adopted western economic policies.

I mean after Stalin died.

Same difference.

Quote from: Psy

That ignores the contractions from the breakup of the U.S.S.R.

No contractions occurred. It was simply revealed the prior growth had been illusory.

100% efficiency would be 100% of the value going into value production coming out as value. Since LTV states labor value translates over to exchange value it means the more workers consume (staying with what is socially acceptable) the more valuable the commodity.

Your argument is circular. You use LTV being true as the primary proof that LTV is true.

LTV has been proven possible in controlled experiments while its alternatives have failed for example Reinhard Sippel experiments in 1995 that disproved modern micro-economic theory by showing the average human doesn't value commodities as modern micro-economic theory theorizes. Also LTV is also the best theory to explain how other animals create value, for trying to say you can use Marginalism to explain how wolves generate value for this pack is laughable but zoologist do use value theories based on LTV to explain how animals generate value.

Then you have the fact that LTV satisfies Occam's razor, the other value theories are overly complex, so complex scientists are not sure humans are even are mentally capable of valuing on the margins, since it would take 2^1000 calculations for a animal to value on the margins between only 1,000 goods, the average brain would take 10^200 seconds to process the value of 1,000 goods if marginal theory was true.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

Mostly due to limitations of technology rather then organization.

And how did they implement technological and societal advancement?

Fairly well since we those socialites moved to agricultural and it was only when their technological advances allowed surplus value that hierarchal societies were created. For example the domestication of animals was quickly adopted once these primitives societies had the knowledge of how to domesticate animals.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

So capitalists are not involved in generating new value.

You have not proven this. I have repeatedly demonstrated why it is false, and you have offered no counter argument other than dancing in semantic circles.

Because value comes from the application of labor to the creation of utility/commodities, managing the process is not creating value, that is like saying a talent agent creates talent rather then simply manage talent.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

We are talking about relations to production which have clear class divisions.

Semantic circle. You define everything to meet your perspective.

It is the normal definition of class.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

Really? You think raw materials and their shipment were unaffected by fighting?

Seeing as they were nowhere near the fight, yes, they were unaffected.

The fighting was in the same nation, meaning workers joined armies (this is being effected by fighting) and you seem to forget fighting spread right into the streets Madrid with Stalinists opening fire on Trots and Anarchists.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

The U.S.S.R built new factories, sure it didn't give workers a say but my point is that it is possible for new means of production to be built without capitalists.

The USSR system was dominated by capitalists. Also, you don't want to be using USSR as an example of a system to move towards.

It is a example of a planned economy being able to create new means of production and technology.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

But you already have greater inefficiency since you have Venture A, B and C all producing without coordinating their efforts infact they try to undermined each other efforts.

So you agree with me then? Because Warren Buffet eliminates that inefficiency. That was my whole point.

No, because Warren Buffet still takes away value thus still a inefficiency. You can argue that Warren Buffet saves value from being wasted but not that Warren Buffet creates value.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

You miss the point, it is not GM's fault it is less competitive then its foreign competitors as its competitors simply entered the business later thus have more advanced machinery as they bought them later then GM they also had huge subsidies from the Japanese state to get their machinery.

And how does that have anything to do with what we were just talking about? Stop dodging, stop running in circles, stop wasting my time.

The point is it is not bloat, it is just that GM's foreign competitors devalued GM's commodities through lowering the labor value required, thus less exchange value is produced per car.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

No as it was asking the people "hey do you like these changes to the constitution" then when they said no Chavez went back to the drawing board so to speak.

He still was undermining the constitution.

No, he tried to change the constitution within the powers the constitution provided him.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

It wasn't improving prior to Chavez.

And there wasn't the degree of oil before Chavez. Nor has Chavez really improved things that much.

Actually there was the same degree of oil before Chavez, it was just the state owned oil company was corrupt.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

Quote from: wodan46

Except that the value they produce is less than the value you need to pay them with.

LTV blah blah blah

None of that changes what I said. Supply exceeds demand, hence products are either cheaper than normal or not bought at all, hence the value put in does not match the value put out. The only way to fix this is to decrease supply, and if you decrease supply, that is going to involve firing workers, because they aren't needed anymore.

But if you fire workers you decrease demand thus you stuck with a crisis of under consumption and over production. Also utility doesn't decrease if the US uses those factories to produce say trucks for the army as the stockpile increased the utility of each truck wouldn't decrease.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

What new job? There is no new jobs waiting for them that allow them the same level of consumption.

Then make them.

With what means of production?

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

And how would capitalists be any different?

They aren't elected. Elected officials can exert oversight over others, but the public also has limited oversight over them. Handing over production systems to them would redouble their motivation to corrupt, while ruining the public's ability to exert oversight over them. Keeping the elected officials and managers of the economy separate allows the former to exert some oversight over the latter.

But if elected officials are corrupt having private companies manage production would not stop said corruption if capitalists also are corrupt.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

Why would a trial be involved with building a bridge? We are talking about production here.

No we were talking about the differences between military and civil systems. I was showing how military and civil systems are inherently different, and that when you analyze those differences, it becomes clear that the military would handle production differently than the civil, and not in a good way.

What does how the military deals with law enforcement have to do with how militarizes deal with production?

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

Russia was a backwater at the time, it didn't go through that stage of capitalism yet.

Irrelevant.

So because Russia was late to industrialize they are more evil for industrializing exactly like how that everyone came before them did? Also the USA and Germany was machine gunning strikers at the time so it is not like the capitalists world totally evolved beyond the barbarism Russia adopted.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

Quote from: wodan46

You mean after it became moderate and adopted western economic policies.

I mean after Stalin died.

Same difference.

Nope, after Stalin Russia left its phase of primitive accumulation like capitalists nations (for example the US committed every single atrocity Stalin did during the US's phase of primitive accumulation). After Stalin Russia become more like developing nations, this why labor uprisings sprung up across the U.S.S.R and its client states.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

That ignores the contractions from the breakup of the U.S.S.R.

No contractions occurred. It was simply revealed the prior growth had been illusory.

So all the factories were illusory, as where all the jobs and levels of consumption? Lets not forget the much lower mortality rate.

The prosperity of the U.S.S.R was not illusory, it supported 5 million more Russians at a higher standard of living then Russia today, all the breakup of Russia did was kill off 5 million Russians and allowed a tiny minority to get super rich while the rest of Russia dies of poverty.

LTV has been proven possible in controlled experiments while its alternatives have failed for example Reinhard Sippel experiments in 1995 that disproved modern micro-economic theory by showing the average human doesn't value commodities as modern micro-economic theory theorizes. Also LTV is also the best theory to explain how other animals create value, for trying to say you can use Marginalism to explain how wolves generate value for this pack is laughable but zoologist do use value theories based on LTV to explain how animals generate value.

I would like to see those controlled experiments. If LTV is so compelling, why can't you offer a simple and logical explanation of it that makes any sense?

Quote from: Psy

Then you have the fact that LTV satisfies Occam's razor, the other value theories are overly complex, so complex scientists are not sure humans are even are mentally capable of valuing on the margins, since it would take 2^1000 calculations for a animal to value on the margins between only 1,000 goods, the average brain would take 10^200 seconds to process the value of 1,000 goods if marginal theory was true.

You are now using strawman. You are taking an extreme version of an already bad theory and offering it as the only possible explanation. I'm not a supporter of so called "rational" economic theory, don't portray me as being such.

Decision science discusses precisely how people can't value 1,000 goods so they take shortcuts. Much of decision science is discussing the benefits and costs of such shortcuts to decision making.

Quote from: Psy

Because value comes from the application of labor to the creation of utility/commodities, managing the process is not creating value, that is like saying a talent agent creates talent rather then simply manage talent.

Let's say at one factory, people are able to make a shirt with 2 hours of labor. At another factory, someone comes up with a method to make shirts in 1 hour of labor, and shares this with the workers. Those workers are now able to produce twice as much as they would without the idea. According to you, that inventor deserves no credit for anything because he doesn't spend any time making commodities, even though he directly enabled the production of said commodities. It probably also took him many hours of labor to come up with method.

You don't seem to recognize that coordination and ingenuity often result in massive increases in productivity, and thus are indirect producers of value.

You also don't recognize that positioning affects an objects value. The world's greatest actor has a talent that is worth nothing unless he is actually put into a position where that talent can be used. Hence, a talent agent, by finding that actor, is able to convert potential productivity into actual productivity.

You treat this as if it is something minor, something anyone can do, but that is not true. Realizing the potential of others requires considerable effort, and considerable competence to do, and as such, they deserve appropriate compensation. This is not something that can be just dealt with off the books.

Quote from: Psy

The fighting was in the same nation, meaning workers joined armies (this is being effected by fighting) and you seem to forget fighting spread right into the streets Madrid with Stalinists opening fire on Trots and Anarchists.

Irrelevant given the specifics.

Quote from: Psy

It is a example of a planned economy being able to create new means of production and technology.

It was a failed economy. I see no difference between communist and capitalist russia by the way. Both systems were pretty much the same, either you had Kremlin power or you didn't.

Quote from: Psy

No, because Warren Buffet still takes away value thus still a inefficiency. You can argue that Warren Buffet saves value from being wasted but not that Warren Buffet creates value.

Saving value from being wasted is the same as creating it for the purposes of economic improvement.

Quote from: Psy

The point is it is not bloat, it is just that GM's foreign competitors devalued GM's commodities through lowering the labor value required, thus less exchange value is produced per car.

The bloat was the direct product of foreign companies lowering the labor value required, and that had nothing to do with whether or not GM was run by capitalists or workers.

Quote from: Psy

But if you fire workers you decrease demand

Firing workers decreases supply. This is incredibly obvious.

Quote from: Psy

With what means of production?

You find useful (IE profitable) jobs and pay them money to do them.

Quote from: Psy

But if elected officials are corrupt having private companies manage production would not stop said corruption if capitalists also are corrupt.

Having private companies manage production makes elected officials less likely to corrupt, and gives the system a chance for working. Handing over production directly to elected officials removes any such chance.

Realize that I'm presuming a system where bribery of political officials is banned rather than called lobbying, and where the government pays for all election costs but prohibits others from doing so.

Quote from: Psy

What does how the military deals with law enforcement have to do with how militarizes deal with production?

I was assuming it was obvious. In military, striking is desertion, would be considered unpatriotic, and would be brutally put down. In civil systems, striking is considered to be a semi-acceptable form of popular activism. Those differences will carry over to production.

On the subject of the historical stuff, I still find Russia to be a very bad model to be considering for any kind of knowledge regarding economic systems. Maybe if one of the European countries goes more actively communist...

LTV has been proven possible in controlled experiments while its alternatives have failed for example Reinhard Sippel experiments in 1995 that disproved modern micro-economic theory by showing the average human doesn't value commodities as modern micro-economic theory theorizes. Also LTV is also the best theory to explain how other animals create value, for trying to say you can use Marginalism to explain how wolves generate value for this pack is laughable but zoologist do use value theories based on LTV to explain how animals generate value.

I would like to see those controlled experiments. If LTV is so compelling, why can't you offer a simple and logical explanation of it that makes any sense?

The most simply and logical example and constant controlled on going experiment would be Dungeons and Dragons, even though the experiment was not started by scientists some in the scientific community has taken notice of how D&D is grounded in LTV, in D&D utility is quantified in formals all the players know but what is missing is LTV which is filled out by the player's common sense, players compare utility to effort (labor) to make long term strategies of levelling up so players basically plug in LTV like formulas into formulas that tell them utility that gives the player the value of equipment, spells, tactics, strategies, ect. Even without known about LTV gamers value based on LTV in order to maximize their utility in games.

Looking at the animal world it is possible to use LTV to explain value there. For example the value of a kill of a wolf pack would be the labor the pack invested in the kill over the energy they get from the kill.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

Then you have the fact that LTV satisfies Occam's razor, the other value theories are overly complex, so complex scientists are not sure humans are even are mentally capable of valuing on the margins, since it would take 2^1000 calculations for a animal to value on the margins between only 1,000 goods, the average brain would take 10^200 seconds to process the value of 1,000 goods if marginal theory was true.

You are now using strawman. You are taking an extreme version of an already bad theory and offering it as the only possible explanation. I'm not a supporter of so called "rational" economic theory, don't portray me as being such.

LTV is still the simplest theory that works.

Quote from: wodan46

Decision science discusses precisely how people can't value 1,000 goods so they take shortcuts. Much of decision science is discussing the benefits and costs of such shortcuts to decision making.

In LTV they can since under LTV they value based on effort so instead of comparing utility across goods they look at the effort required thus why it is possible for gamers to quickly to value fictional goods in a game.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

Because value comes from the application of labor to the creation of utility/commodities, managing the process is not creating value, that is like saying a talent agent creates talent rather then simply manage talent.

Let's say at one factory, people are able to make a shirt with 2 hours of labor. At another factory, someone comes up with a method to make shirts in 1 hour of labor, and shares this with the workers. Those workers are now able to produce twice as much as they would without the idea. According to you, that inventor deserves no credit for anything because he doesn't spend any time making commodities, even though he directly enabled the production of said commodities. It probably also took him many hours of labor to come up with method.

Engineers are workers, they are paid a wage for their work and only paid a fraction of the value their produced. They are involved in the production process as they design the means of production, process of production and commodities. Capitalists don't perform this task, very few capitalists had engineering degrees and engineering is not a prerequisite for business courses.

Quote from: wodan46

You don't seem to recognize that coordination and ingenuity often result in massive increases in productivity, and thus are indirect producers of value.

Foremen usually direct production not CEOs and investors rarely even are aware of the production process.

Quote from: wodan46

You also don't recognize that positioning affects an objects value. The world's greatest actor has a talent that is worth nothing unless he is actually put into a position where that talent can be used. Hence, a talent agent, by finding that actor, is able to convert potential productivity into actual productivity.

You treat this as if it is something minor, something anyone can do, but that is not true. Realizing the potential of others requires considerable effort, and considerable competence to do, and as such, they deserve appropriate compensation. This is not something that can be just dealt with off the books.

But the talent agent doesn't create talent, if a studio discovered the talent directly the studio would still get the same amount talent then if it was brought to them through a talent agent.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

The fighting was in the same nation, meaning workers joined armies (this is being effected by fighting) and you seem to forget fighting spread right into the streets Madrid with Stalinists opening fire on Trots and Anarchists.

Irrelevant given the specifics.

Firefights on the streets is disruptive to production regardless of the parties involved.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

It is a example of a planned economy being able to create new means of production and technology.

It was a failed economy. I see no difference between communist and capitalist russia by the way. Both systems were pretty much the same, either you had Kremlin power or you didn't.

Like I said the U.S.S.R in the 1980's was able to provide for 5 million more Russian's (and the populations of the breakaway's) at a significantly higher living standard. Yes the workers were unhappy about the undemocratic nature of the U.S.S.R and stagnation of living standards but the breakup of the U.S.S.R no only didn't solve this. Russian's didn't even want free-markets, Yeltsin needed to order a military coup to crush what little democracy was created by the break up of the U.S.S.R in order to push through free-market reforms as most Russians were pushing for democratic socialism not for free-market capitalism.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

No, because Warren Buffet still takes away value thus still a inefficiency. You can argue that Warren Buffet saves value from being wasted but not that Warren Buffet creates value.

Saving value from being wasted is the same as creating it for the purposes of economic improvement.

It is not creating it as it is not a source of new value.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

The point is it is not bloat, it is just that GM's foreign competitors devalued GM's commodities through lowering the labor value required, thus less exchange value is produced per car.

The bloat was the direct product of foreign companies lowering the labor value required, and that had nothing to do with whether or not GM was run by capitalists or workers.

You view as bloat, while I simply view it as an older means of production.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

But if you fire workers you decrease demand

Firing workers decreases supply. This is incredibly obvious.

But firing workers also decreases demand, you need money to buy commodities.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

With what means of production?

You find useful (IE profitable) jobs and pay them money to do them.

There is rampant over-production across all sectors of global capitalism.

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

But if elected officials are corrupt having private companies manage production would not stop said corruption if capitalists also are corrupt.

Having private companies manage production makes elected officials less likely to corrupt, and gives the system a chance for working. Handing over production directly to elected officials removes any such chance.

Realize that I'm presuming a system where bribery of political officials is banned rather than called lobbying, and where the government pays for all election costs but prohibits others from doing so.

Why? Elected officials are bought off by private companies, even if you ban it why wouldn't it just go underground?

Quote from: wodan46

Quote from: Psy

What does how the military deals with law enforcement have to do with how militarizes deal with production?

I was assuming it was obvious. In military, striking is desertion, would be considered unpatriotic, and would be brutally put down. In civil systems, striking is considered to be a semi-acceptable form of popular activism. Those differences will carry over to production.

That is true but when it comes to producing utility (like a bridge) they are able to organize productive forces as good as any private company.

Quote from: wodan46

On the subject of the historical stuff, I still find Russia to be a very bad model to be considering for any kind of knowledge regarding economic systems. Maybe if one of the European countries goes more actively communist...

Yet the Marxist revolutions in Germany (yes there was more then one) after WWI were crushed so there wasn't.

I have no idea what that even is, so it wouldn't be surprising. Given that I also view the vast majority of economic theory to be garbage, I don't really mind.

I am actually pretty close to Psy's perspectives on capitalists, but I still believe them to be an important and necessary cog. However, I think that CEOs and upper management should receive bonuses based on the profits they earn the company, not based on their ability to transfer earnings to themselves and expenses to others.